Qualley v. Chrysler Credit Corp.

• Decision Date: 09 May 1974
• Docket Number: No. 39303,39303
• Citation: 191 Neb. 787,217 N.W.2d 914
• Parties: George T. QUALLEY, Appellant, v. CHRYSLER CREDIT CORPORATION, Appellee.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Page 914

217 N.W.2d 914

191 Neb. 787

George T. QUALLEY, Appellant, v. CHRYSLER CREDIT CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 39303.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

May 9, 1974.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The doctrine of forum non conveniens refers to the discretionary power of a court to decline jurisdiction when the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice would be better served if the action were brought and tried in another forum.

2. Whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed under the rule of forum non conveniens depends largely upon the facts of the particular case and rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. Factors which relate to the public interest and the welfare of the court are to be considered together with factors which relate to the convenience of the parties.

3. An action should not be dismissed under the rule of forum non conveniens unless an alternative forum is still available to the plaintiff.

4. To the extent that Herrmann v. Franklin Ice Cream Co., 114 Neb. 468, 208 N.W. 141, implies that the doctrine of forum non conveniens is not recognized in Nebraska, it is overruled.

George T. Qualley, P.C., Sioux City, Iowa, Thomas A. Vakulskas, Nebraska

City, William M. Alexander, Sioux City, Iowa, for appellant.

Pilcher, Howard & Dustin, Omaha, for appellee.

Heard before WHITE, C.J., and SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, McCOWN, NEWTON, CLINTON and BRODKEY, JJ.

BOSLAUGH, Justice.

This is an action for damages arising out of the repossession and sale by the defendant of an automobile owned by the plaintiff. The trial court sustained the motion of the defendant to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens. The plaintiff appeals.

The plaintiff is a resident of Sioux City, Iowa. On October 31, 1967, the plaintiff purchased a 1968 Dodge automobile on an installment contract from Sioux City Dodge, Inc. The contract was later assigned to the defendant, a foreign corporation licensed to do business in Nebraska.

On October 16, 1970, and again on October 17, 1970, a representative of the defendant demanded payment of an installment that became due September 30, 1970. The installment payment was not made and, without further notice to the plaintiff, the automobile was repossessed on the night of October 17, 1970. The plaintiff alleged the seizure was illegal under the law of Iowa because it was made without notice or an opportunity to be heard.

The plaintiff contends the doctrine of forum non conveniens is not recognized in Nebraska, or, if recognized, was erroneously applied in this case.

The doctrine of forum non conveniens, although used infrequently until recent years, is generally considered to be of common law origin. It refers to the discretionary power of a court to decline jurisdiction when the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice would be better served if the action were brought and tried in another forum. Whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed under this rule depends largely upon the facts of the particular case and rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.

The plaintiff relies upon Herrmann v. Franklin Ice Cream Co., 114 Neb. 468, 208 N.W. 141, in support of his contention that forum non conveniens is not recognized in Nebraska. In the Herrmann case this court held the District Court had no discretion to decline jurisdiction in an action by a nonresident arising out of an accident which had occurred in Missouri. The opinion was grounded primarily upon Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States, which provides: 'The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.' The United States Supreme...